Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Ekr editorial 17 3 (#2164)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

Mostly improvements or neutral.  As a general comment, you appear to be rewrapping your changed paragraphs to a different width than we've been using for these documents, which makes more appear to have changed than actually did.

> @@ -1679,9 +1683,10 @@ peer from a new local address.  In path validation, endpoints test reachability
 between a specific local address and a specific peer address, where an address
 is the two-tuple of IP address and port.
 
-Path validation tests that packets can be both sent to and received from a peer
-on the path.  Importantly, it validates that the packets received from the
-migrating endpoint do not carry a spoofed source address.
+Path validation tests that packets (PATH_CHALLENGE) can be both sent
+to and received (PATH_RESPONSE) from a peer on the path.  Importantly,

These are not packets.

> @@ -1737,27 +1743,26 @@ to the same remote address from which the PATH_CHALLENGE was received.
 
 ## Successful Path Validation
 
-A new address is considered valid when a PATH_RESPONSE frame is received
-containing data that was sent in a previous PATH_CHALLENGE. Receipt of an
-acknowledgment for a packet containing a PATH_CHALLENGE frame is not adequate
-validation, since the acknowledgment can be spoofed by a malicious peer.
+A new address is considered valid when A PATH_RESPONSE frame is received
+that meets the following criteria:
+
+- It contains that was sent in a previous PATH_CHALLENGE. Receipt of an

I think you a word out here.

> @@ -2294,7 +2301,7 @@ coalesced (see {{packet-coalesce}}) to facilitate retransmission.
 
 ## Stateless Reset {#stateless-reset}
 
-A stateless reset is provided as an option of last resort for an endpoint that
+A stateless reset is provided as an option of last resort for a server that

No, SR is bilateral, even if we expect servers to use them more frequently.

> @@ -2338,14 +2345,15 @@ of the packet header.  The remainder of the first byte and an arbitrary
 number of random bytes following it are set to unpredictable values.  The last
 16 bytes of the datagram contain a Stateless Reset Token.
 
-A stateless reset will be interpreted by a recipient as a packet with a short
-header.  For the packet to appear as valid, the Random Bits field needs to
-include at least 182 bits of random or unpredictable values (or 24 bytes, less
-the two fixed bits).  This is intended to allow for a destination connection ID
-of the maximum length permitted, with a minimal packet number, and payload.  The
-Stateless Reset Token corresponds to the minimum expansion of the packet
-protection AEAD.  More random bytes might be necessary if the endpoint could
-have negotiated a packet protection scheme with a larger minimum AEAD expansion.
+A stateless reset will be interpreted by a recipient as a packet with
+a short header.  For the packet to appear as valid, the Random Bits
+field needs to include at least 182 bits of data (or 24 bytes, less

I appreciate that you're removing the suggestion that these should be "random" despite the name of the field.  However, it seems worthwhile to keep "unpredictable" at least.

> @@ -2447,9 +2455,11 @@ Note that Stateless Reset packets do not have any cryptographic protection.
 
 ### Looping {#reset-looping}
 
-The design of a Stateless Reset is such that it is indistinguishable from a
-valid packet.  This means that a Stateless Reset might trigger the sending of a
-Stateless Reset in response, which could lead to infinite exchanges.
+The design of a Stateless Reset is such that without knowing the
+stateless reset token it is indistinguishable from a valid packet.
+This means that if a server sends a Stateless Reset to another server,
+that might trigger the sending of a Stateless Reset in response, which

Can we get rid of one of these "that"s?

> @@ -3732,9 +3743,9 @@ ID that is chosen by the recipient of the packet; the Source Connection ID
 includes the connection ID that the sender of the packet wishes to use (see
 {{negotiating-connection-ids}}).
 
-The first Handshake packet sent by a server contains a packet number of 0.
-Handshake packets are their own packet number space.  Packet numbers are
-incremented normally for other Handshake packets.
+

Extra line seems unnecessary here.

> @@ -3732,9 +3743,9 @@ ID that is chosen by the recipient of the packet; the Source Connection ID
 includes the connection ID that the sender of the packet wishes to use (see
 {{negotiating-connection-ids}}).
 
-The first Handshake packet sent by a server contains a packet number of 0.
-Handshake packets are their own packet number space.  Packet numbers are
-incremented normally for other Handshake packets.
+
+Handshake packets are their own packet number space, and thus
+the first Handshake packet sent by a server contains a packet number of 0.

Is this a requirement?  Last I knew, some implementations were choosing to just keep a counter incrementing across all packet spaces, and that was okay.  The key point is that (Initial,X) and (Handshake,X) are different packets, but IIRC there's no requirement that each space start at zero.

> @@ -3847,10 +3858,11 @@ MUST include the value of the Original Destination Connection ID field of the
 Retry packet (that is, the Destination Connection ID field from the client's
 first Initial packet) in the transport parameter.
 
-If the client received and processed a Retry packet, it validates that the
-original_connection_id transport parameter is present and correct; otherwise, it
-validates that the transport parameter is absent.  A client MUST treat a failed
-validation as a connection error of type TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.
+If the client received and processed a Retry packet, it MUST validate
+that the original_connection_id transport parameter is present and
+correct; otherwise, it validates that the transport parameter is
+absent.  A client MUST treat a failed validation as a connection error
+of type TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.

Adding the MUST to the validate-is-present fork seems unnecessary, but if you're going to, isn't it also a MUST to validate-is-absent?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2164#pullrequestreview-184901101